James Comey tears into Apple, Silicon Valley over encryption policies in new book

Comments

Well, I certainly agree there needs to be a legislative solution. Perhaps also a new agency, or an existing agency (NSA?), could be given the mandate, authority, and budget to focus on protecting the private information of American citizens from organized crime, foreign governments, and other government agencies (federal, state, and local).

I think people may not fully appreciate how important it is to have that legislative mandate/authority/budget. All agencies fundamentally are acting in accordance with those things. Guys like Comey are basically trying to do the job that the law tells them they are supposed to do. If we don't like what they're doing, that often means we need to change the law.

It would probably be better for the FBI to be defunded, have all their top tier managers fired and fold the remainder under Homeland Security.

That sounds way too extreme to me -- the sort of thing that feels good to say or hear, but in practice would be a complete mess.

I think the FBI needs to put on its bigboy pants and start figuring things like this out and not whining to IT companies like Apple, Google, etc that they need to make backdoors because we can't figure something out. It's these very technologies that protect the government of any country as well as its citizens, companies, etc. It will always be a cat and mouse game. If the FBI figures something out, Apple or whomever owns the technology will patch it just as any company should.

Of course the FBI sees the dark side this what they think they are paid to do, their whole purpose in life is to imagine all the bad things that could happen. But in reality, they are police, as police they investigate a crime. They are suppose to look backward not forward. There are other groups who jobs are to look into the future and set policy. The FBI is not suppose to be looking for all the dark things that could happen. If they are doing this they are no longer investigating a crime, they see bad people or people who they think are bad and they want to dig into their lives and see all the dark things they are doing. This is why they are so upset they can not see into your personal information. They no longer want to wait for the crime to happen they want to watch and listen to you when they like. The FBI can not compel you to tell them what you know, but they think since it been written down or recorded on your electronic devices it free for them to go through it as they like.

We live in a very different world, we have people giving up their privacy to get free products, and we have the government who thinks they should have free access to all your personal information and no company should be allow you to protect that information.

We do unfortunately live in a very different world, even from about 5 or so years ago. It's not a world that I like living in I know that. It's a shame there are very few companies like Apple who seem to really care about privacy, data encryption, your security, etc and yet they're the ones being criticized for it.

Well, I certainly agree there needs to be a legislative solution. Perhaps also a new agency, or an existing agency (NSA?), could be given the mandate, authority, and budget to focus on protecting the private information of American citizens from organized crime, foreign governments, and other government agencies (federal, state, and local).

I think people may not fully appreciate how important it is to have that legislative mandate/authority/budget. All agencies fundamentally are acting in accordance with those things. Guys like Comey are basically trying to do the job that the law tells them they are supposed to do. If we don't like what they're doing, that often means we need to change the law.

It would probably be better for the FBI to be defunded, have all their top tier managers fired and fold the remainder under Homeland Security.

That sounds way too extreme to me -- the sort of thing that feels good to say or hear, but in practice would be a complete mess.

His points only prove that he wasn't competent in either his understanding of constitutional rights much less encryption. If there's a backdoor key that Comey and his Orwellian vision of government would have ready access to, the encryption would be a farce. He's not a good businessman either considering he wants $17.99 for his book.

He doesn't set book prices - his publisher does. And I don't know whether you're trying to say that he's charging too much or too little, but $18 is actually a low list price for a hardcover these days. The NY Times hardcover non-fiction bestsellers average about $27.50 list.

I’ll say it again. Congress grilled Zuckerberg demanding more security on his platform, and the FBI wants LESS security on our personal devices. It seems those two viewpoints are completely at odds. Incompatible, in fact. We have to make sure those evil corporations don’t get any of our data, but if the government wants access, well that’s just DANDY.

Cryptography is math with one number being secret. You either know the number and can get the answer, or you don't know the number, and you can't get the answer without trying a lot of possible numbers.

The math doesn't care if you believe in truth, justice, and the American way, or if you're a criminal out to make a quick buck. It doesn't care if you have a warrant. If you know the secret number, you can get the answer.

Think of a physical lock. The police can't force you to hand over a key to a lock. After all, you may not have it. A warrant gives them the right to attempt to pass the lock without anyone else's authorization or involvement. That can involve picking the lock, physically destroying it (say, cutting a padlock shackle), breaking down the door, or any number of other methods. Of course, you can take the more destructive methods off the table by giving them the key.

Likewise, a warrant should allow the police to attempt to attack the encryption in question. Nothing more.

...They are suppose to look backward not forward. There are other groups who jobs are to look into the future and set policy. The FBI is not suppose to be looking for all the dark things that could happen. If they are doing this they are no longer investigating a crime, they see bad people or people who they think are bad and they want to dig into their lives and see all the dark things they are doing...

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Or maybe I misunderstood your comment.

If, in fact, the FBI were only an post-crime investigative unit, then it indeed needs to be dramatically reduced in size, eliminated or at the least, confess that it is incompetent in recognizing potential dangers. There are certainly recent events (and many over the decades) that suggest the latter.

All law enforcement agencies are charged with preventing crime to the best of their ability - as they should be.

Setting policy is a completely different animal. Setting procedure falls under the purview of the agency.

Go ahead with your comments.
However, NONE of you will have the right to complain when crimes can't be solved because LE doesn't have the rights or the option to have access to smartphones.
I wonder what would happen if a terrible crime was committed impacting an Apple executive, but nope, can't provide assistance because of key evidence on an encrypted phone...

Go ahead with your comments.
However, NONE of you will have the right to complain when crimes can't be solved because LE doesn't have the rights or the option to have access to smartphones.
I wonder what would happen if a terrible crime was committed impacting an Apple executive, but nope, can't provide assistance because of key evidence on an encrypted phone…

Nice straw man. Not only does Apple provide assistance, they preemptively reach out to law enforcement when they know their products are involved.

Go ahead with your comments.
However, NONE of you will have the right to complain when crimes can't be solved because LE doesn't have the rights or the option to have access to smartphones.
I wonder what would happen if a terrible crime was committed impacting an Apple executive, but nope, can't provide assistance because of key evidence on an encrypted phone...

I think you may be overestimating the importance of the contents of a phone in relation to known crimes. Evidence is available from the totality of other sources to prove criminality. One simple example: Location using GPS data and numbers of others contacted may come into play, but it is usually physical evidence which is necessary to prove guilt. Data can be faked, stolen or planted on people (same as physical evidence) but physical evidence still tends to be more convincing.

If you take a look at the vast majority of these "defunct" agencies, they are defunct in name only. Their power, regulations and personnel have been rolled into another agency with a different name - and in most cases, expanded.